Text 5983, 58 rader
Skriven 2008-01-18 22:35:59 av Daniel Prather (1144.pol_inc)
     Kommentar till en text av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Pro-Choice
==================
  Re: Pro-Choice
  By: TIM RICHARDSON to DAN CEPPA on Fri Jan 18 2008 06:48 pm

 > The mother has already made a choice. In fact.....the mother has already
 > made `several' choices:
 >
 > 1. To have....or `not' to have sexual relations that could result in
 > pregnancy?  The mother chose `to have'.

If the woman was complicit in the sexual act, sure.  It doesn't mean she has to
endure whatever consequences result "just because".

 > 2. To use one of `several' pregnancy-preventing methods available to her: A
 > daily birth control pill; a post-relations pill; a diaphram; making her
 > partner use a condom. The mother chose `none of the above'.

This isn't true.  Birth control can fail, condoms can break, diaphragms can not
fit properly, etc.  It's true that the only 100% method of birth control is not
having sex.  It's also completely unrealistic.  There are also vindictive men
who sabotage birth control.

 > So now.......the mother wasn't responsible enough to make positive
 > pregnancy prevention decisions in order to prevent a pregnancy to begin
 > with....what makes anyone think:

No, you're just setting up a scenario where your denying a woman the right to
control her own body seems "morally" right.

 > 1. The mother is now suddenly responsible enough to make the decision to
 > kill her baby?

People have ultimate control over their bodies.  If men had babies, I'd argue
for the same rights for men.  But, saying "baby" is a point of contention.  At
which point is it a "baby"?

 > 2. The baby has to pay with its life because the mother is irresponsible,
 > and too stupid for words?

Again, at which point is it a "baby?"  At which point do you justify
superceding the rights of one person, who is living, alive, a productive and
participating member in society, with the mutually exclusive rights of
something that could be as few as two cells?

Secondly, you've excluded every other possibility for pregnancy, and put
everything on the shoulders of the mother.  Perhaps the father should've kept
his dick in his pants and left the woman alone, but in a world where abortion
is forbidden, it's always the woman's fault that she's pregnant, and she should
always pay the price.

This type of stuff just pisses me off.  I don't know your age, nor whether or
not you have kids, but with that type of attitude I'd declare your reproductive
rights to be dangerous to society.  Does that mean I have the right to request
your balls be removed?  Or, is that different because it's YOUR body that's
being violated rather than some stupid woman's?

-- Daniel
--- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD
 * Origin: :: The Realm of Dreams :: bbs.mysticone.com (1:112/10)